Talk:G20/Archives/2014

Prospective members section
I've just removed this section as it did not provide any citations and the article does not appear to include any material relating to these countries possibly joining the G20. As I understand it, the G20 is not open to new member states, and there's no likihood of existing countries being replaced (its membership isn't the 20 largest economies, but rather large and somewhat geographically representative economies). I note that this list was added by an IP account without any explanation or citations. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

These G-20 aren't the 20 "major" economies
If for "major" is intended "(a) greater in size, amount, number, or extent; (b) greater in importance or rank" (as just checked on my Webster's), then some of those 20 economies clearly don't belong to such a club. A bunch of those countries seem to have been included on the basis of different criteria, obviously. I would consequently propose to drop the word "major" from the title of this article: quite simple, as it surprisingly isn't applied to those countries inside the text, only in the title! --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * disagree
 * "Major" can mean importance, as you have said, or size or whatever. Saudi Arabia might not be in the 20 biggest economies but it IS important enough to be included for reasons of energy. Certainly geopolitic plays here. Just look at the members. All of them are either strategically located, have big economies, vast population (Indonesia, 240 mil & Mexico, 90 mil) and/or have vast natural resources (Saudi Arabia & South Africa). Rad vsovereign (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

France was considered a "major" Allied power in WW2, despite getting knocked out early in the game. It's major because it has a big population, big economy, significant say in the world economy, strong military, etc...Sure you put a bunch of nations with high economy with high GDP per capita, but in the end, their population size makes them small and insigificant in the greater scheme of global politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phead128 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think every country has an implicit wealth. The territory, for example. If we take into account that Argentina owns 3 million square kilometers of land, of wich a big portion are the richests soils in the world for farming, and also that this country produces food for 10 times its own population, then Argentina's implicit wealth is much bigger than that of Japan or any tiny European country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.5.73 (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

so Spain is or isn't a member?
The map shows Spain in light blue (being represented by he EU but not on its own), but its listed twice as a member. So is Spain a member of the G-20 or not (I have no idea)? Somebody should explain its situation in the article if its membership is "special". --Taraborn (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, it is not . I'll fix the reference. --Taraborn (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is now addressed explicitly by the addition of the lede list sentence, see new section below, this date. LeProf 50.179.245.225 (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

List added to lede; please allow to remain, while people evaluate value
The list of names of the permanent and permanent guest members of the G20 were added to the article lede. This increases the lede's length by <10%, but is makes a most sought after single piece of article information immediately available to the reader.

The list was also textually linked to the visual information of the map, adding to the value of both. Please allow this edit to remain, at least for a time, while people evaluate the potential value of this edit. LeProf 50.179.245.225 (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Group photos of G-20 leaders...
Should the group photos of the G-20 leaders be put in a separate topic? Rockies77 (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, the group photos should have an extra page, because the G20 are the most expensive photo op on the globe. I came to the G20 page to ascertain which achievements can be attributed to the G20 and found NONE, nix, de nada, nitchevo. Norway should be glad they don't have to spend money on such a photo op. If the G20 was fit for purpose we would not have had the global financial crisis in 2008, i.e. 9 years after G20 was formed. I feel duped. 121.209.56.31 (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)